DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/7/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 17/747,239 was filed 5/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 3/3/2023 and 4/12/2024 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 7/7/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 20-22 are new. Claims 5 and 14 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-4, 6-9, and 20-22 are directed to a machine and the method, as claimed in claims 10-13 and 15-19, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1)
Claim 10, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
determining, from the at least one keyword, one or more additional limitations extracted from the first user input;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing, for a search session or a user session, raw search results generated by the initial search before applying filters to the raw search results;
querying to determine whether a filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists;
when the filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists, storing the filter configuration;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword based on the filter configuration stored in the cache, the plurality of filters being stored;
matching the one or more additional limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying matched filters corresponding to the one or more additional limitations to the raw search results stored before determining exposed filters;
determining at least one filter group, each of the at least one filter group containing at least one of the plurality of filters;
identifying a filter group of the at least one filter group containing a matched filter corresponding to the one or more additional limitations;
determining a ranking for each of the at least one filter group based on a usefulness score;
providing, based on the ranking, a first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input, wherein filters in the identified filter group are automatically designated as exposed filters;
saving an original saved filter configuration comprising the first subset of the plurality of filters and an ordering of filters and filter groups in a filter;
providing a search result based on the stem keyword and the matched filters corresponding to the one or more additional limitations;
receiving a second user input, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the selected one of the plurality of filters to the raw search results stored to generate updated search results;
determining an applicability of each remaining filter of the plurality of filters by determining whether applying the remaining filter to the updated search results would yield no result;
updating the ranking of the at least one filter group, based on the second user input;
fetching the ordering of filters and filter groups from the original saved filter configuration;
updating the updated search results; and
regenerating the plurality of filters based on the applicability of each remaining filter,
wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration stored to determine whether the regenerated filter was included in the original saved filter configuration and whether applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result,
wherein a regenerated filter that was included in the original saved filter configuration and for which applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result is displayed as unavailable and unselectable, and
wherein the filter is updated by displaying the regenerated plurality of filters according to the ordering of filters and filter groups fetched.
Claim 19 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, among the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
wherein the search result is based on the stem keyword;
determining, among the at least one keyword, user-defined limitations;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing, for a search session or a user session, raw search results generated by the initial search before applying filters to the raw search results;
querying to determine whether a pre-determined filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists;
when the pre-determined filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists, storing the predetermined filter configuration;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword based on the pre-determined filter configuration stored, the plurality of filters being stored;
matching the user-defined limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying matched filters corresponding to the user-defined limitations to the raw search results stored before determining exposed filters;
determining at least one filter group, each of the at least one filter group containing at least one of the plurality of filters;
identifying a filter group of the at least one filter group containing a matched filter corresponding to the user-defined limitations;
determining a ranking for each of the plurality of filters, wherein:
each of the plurality of filters is assigned a usefulness score stored; and
the ranking is based on the usefulness score;
determining at least one filter in a first subset of the plurality of filters being a parallel option;
arranging the parallel option in the identified filter group;
saving the arrangement of the parallel option in the identified filter group;
providing, based on the ranking, the first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters in the filter for the first user input, wherein filters in the identified filter group are automatically designated as exposed filters;
saving an original saved filter configuration comprising the first subset of the plurality of filters and an ordering of filters and filter groups in the filter;
providing a search result based on the stem keyword and the matched filters corresponding to the user-defined limitations;
providing, a user element that, when selected, displays all of the plurality of filters;
receiving a second user input, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the selected one of the plurality of filters to the raw search results stored to generate updated search results;
updating the ranking of the remaining plurality of filters;
updating the usefulness score based on the second user input;
fetching the ordering of filters and filter groups from the original saved filter configuration;
updating the updated search results; and
regenerating the plurality of filters by:
determining an applicability of each remaining filter of the plurality of filters by determining whether applying the remaining filter to the updated search results would yield no result;
determining, based on the applicability of each remaining filter, a second subset of the plurality of filters;
maintaining the first subset of the plurality of filters according to the ordering fetched regardless of whether a filter in the first subset is determined to be applicable to the updated search results;
fetching the arrangement of the parallel option in the identified filter group; and
updating the filter by displaying the regenerated plurality of filters according to the ordering of filters and filter groups fetched and by displaying the second subset of the plurality of filters in an unavailable state,
wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration stored to determine whether the regenerated filter was included in the original saved filter configuration and whether applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result, and wherein a regenerated filter that was included in the original saved filter configuration and for which applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the ordering fetched is preserved in the updated filter.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claims 10 and 19 are certain methods of organizing human activity because determining, providing, and updating search filters and search results to a user based on a user query can be both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it is following rules or instructions and/or a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Thus, claims 10 and 19 recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 10. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 1 as described above for independent claim 10.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 10 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input from a user device by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
determining, from the at least one keyword, one or more additional limitations extracted from the first user input;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing, in a cache for a search session or a user session, raw search results generated by the initial search before applying filters to the raw search results;
querying a database to determine whether a filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists;
when the filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists, storing the filter configuration in the cache;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword based on the filter configuration stored in the cache, the plurality of filters being stored on at least one storage device;
matching the one or more additional limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying matched filters corresponding to the one or more additional limitations to the raw search results stored in the cache before determining exposed filters;
determining at least one filter group, each of the at least one filter group containing at least one of the plurality of filters;
identifying a filter group of the at least one filter group containing a matched filter corresponding to the one or more additional limitations;
determining a ranking for each of the at least one filter group based on a usefulness score;
providing, based on the ranking, a first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters for the first user input, wherein filters in the identified filter group are automatically designated as exposed filters;
saving, in the cache, an original saved filter configuration comprising the first subset of the plurality of filters and an ordering of filters and filter groups in a filter interface;
providing, to the user device, a search result based on the stem keyword and the matched filters corresponding to the one or more additional limitations;
receiving a second user input from the user device, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the selected one of the plurality of filters to the raw search results stored in the cache to generate updated search results;
determining an applicability of each remaining filter of the plurality of filters by determining whether applying the remaining filter to the updated search results would yield no result;
updating the ranking of the at least one filter group, based on the second user input;
fetching, from the cache, the ordering of filters and filter groups from the original saved filter configuration;
updating, to the user device, the updated search results; and
regenerating the plurality of filters based on the applicability of each remaining filter,
wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration stored in the cache to determine whether the regenerated filter was included in the original saved filter configuration and whether applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result,
wherein a regenerated filter that was included in the original saved filter configuration and for which applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result is displayed as unavailable and unselectable, and
wherein the filter interface is updated by displaying the regenerated plurality of filters according to the ordering of filters and filter groups fetched from the cache.
Independent claim 1 recites the additional elements (additional elements are bolded) of at least one storage device comprising instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions in addition to the additional elements already addressed in the rejection for independent claim 10.
Independent claim 19 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
extracting at least one keyword from a first user input from a user device by a user, the first user input is a search term;
determining, among the at least one keyword, a stem keyword;
wherein the search result is based on the stem keyword;
determining, among the at least one keyword, user-defined limitations;
conducting an initial search based on the stem keyword;
storing, in a cache for a search session or a user session, raw search results generated by the initial search before applying filters to the raw search results;
querying a database to determine whether a pre-determined filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists;
when the pre-determined filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword exists, storing the predetermined filter configuration in the cache;
determining a plurality of filters associated with the at least one keyword based on the pre-determined filter configuration stored in the cache, the plurality of filters being stored on the at least one storage device;
matching the user-defined limitations to the plurality of filters;
applying matched filters corresponding to the user-defined limitations to the raw search results stored in the cache before determining exposed filters;
determining at least one filter group, each of the at least one filter group containing at least one of the plurality of filters;
identifying a filter group of the at least one filter group containing a matched filter corresponding to the user-defined limitations;
determining a ranking for each of the plurality of filters, wherein:
each of the plurality of filters is assigned a usefulness score stored on the at least one storage device; and
the ranking is based on the usefulness score;
determining at least one filter in a first subset of the plurality of filters being a parallel option;
arranging the parallel option in the identified filter group;
saving, in the cache, the arrangement of the parallel option in the identified filter group;
providing, based on the ranking, the first subset of the plurality of filters as exposed filters in the filter interface for the first user input, wherein filters in the identified filter group are automatically designated as exposed filters;
saving, in the cache, an original saved filter configuration comprising the first subset of the plurality of filters and an ordering of filters and filter groups in the filter interface;
providing, to the user device, a search result based on the stem keyword and the matched filters corresponding to the user-defined limitations;
providing, to the user device, a user interface element that, when selected, displays all of the plurality of filters;
receiving a second user input from the user device, wherein the second user input is a selection of one of the plurality of filters;
in response to the second user input, applying the selected one of the plurality of filters to the raw search results stored in the cache to generate updated search results;
updating the ranking of the remaining plurality of filters;
updating the usefulness score based on the second user input;
fetching, from the cache, the ordering of filters and filter groups from the original saved filter configuration;
updating, to the user device, the updated search results; and
regenerating the plurality of filters by:
determining an applicability of each remaining filter of the plurality of filters by determining whether applying the remaining filter to the updated search results would yield no result;
determining, based on the applicability of each remaining filter, a second subset of the plurality of filters;
maintaining the first subset of the plurality of filters according to the ordering fetched from the cache regardless of whether a filter in the first subset is determined to be applicable to the updated search results;
fetching, from the cache, the arrangement of the parallel option in the identified filter group; and
updating, to the user device, the filter interface by displaying the regenerated plurality of filters according to the ordering of filters and filter groups fetched from the cache and by displaying the second subset of the plurality of filters in an unavailable state,
wherein each regenerated filter is compared to the original saved filter configuration stored in the cache to determine whether the regenerated filter was included in the original saved filter configuration and whether applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result, and wherein a regenerated filter that was included in the original saved filter configuration and for which applying the regenerated filter to the updated search results would yield no result is displayed as unavailable and unselectable while the ordering fetched from the cache is preserved in the updated filter interface.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a user device”, “at least one storage device”, “a cache”, “at least one storage device comprising instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”, “a user interface element”, a filter “interface”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (input/receiving/fetching/extracting information, storing information, transmitting/presenting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0042], [0049], [0066], and [0094]-[0095] of the instant Specification). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited input, receiving, extracting, stored, fetching and transmitting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1, 10, and 19, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process/system/article of manufacture amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 19 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 10, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, 21, and 22
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, 21, and 22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, 21, and 22 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 10 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 10.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, 21, and 22 set forth:
wherein the filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword comprises applicable filters, rankings of the applicable filters, and grouping information.
wherein determining at least one filter group comprises: determining that at least one filter in the first subset of the plurality of filters corresponds to a parallel option; and arranging the parallel option in one of the at least one filter group; saving an arrangement of the parallel option in the one of the at least one filter group in the cache.
wherein regenerating the plurality of filters comprises: determining, based on the applicability of each remaining filter, a second subset of the plurality of filters; fetching, from the cache, the arrangement of the parallel options in the one of the at least one filter group; and updating, to the user device, the second subset of the plurality of filters as unavailable while maintaining the arrangement of the parallel options fetched from the cache.
wherein each of the at least one filter group is assigned the usefulness score, and wherein the usefulness score is stored on the at least one storage device.
perform the step of updating the usefulness score based on the second user input.
wherein the usefulness score is further determined by click through rate of the corresponding filter.
wherein, when the filter configuration associated with the at least one keyword does not exist, the at least one processor is configured to determine a limiting word in the first user input and designate the limiting word as one of the plurality of filters.
wherein, after receiving another user input selecting another filter or deselecting a previously selected filter, the at least one processor is configured to repeat determining applicability of remaining filters, updating the ranking of the at least one filter group, and updating the search result.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining, providing, and updating search filters and search results to a user based on a user query. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 10, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1 and 10.
Thus, dependent 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, 21, and 22 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 9, 18, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 9, 18, and 20 sets forth:
providing, to the user device, a user interface element, that when selected, displays all of the plurality of filters.
wherein the cache comprises a raw file, a temporary database, or one or more database entries that temporarily store data for the search session or the user session.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining, providing, and updating search filters and search results to a user based on a user query. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a user interface element”, “a temporary database”, “one or more database entries”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 10, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“providing to the user device a user interface element…displays”). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0029], [0031], and [0033] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “user interface element” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 9, 18, and 20 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 17-32 of the Remarks filed 7/7/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea and, in any event, integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues on pages 18-21 that the amended claims do not recite any abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously.
As an example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword” recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 is considered an abstract idea. This limitation falls within a plurality of groupings of abstract ideas as described in MPEP 2106.04. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword” is considered a method of organizing human activity because it falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of both commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people. The claimed invention “provides and updates a user with optimized filters applicable to search results in a user-friendly way and updates the filters to reflect the trends of the market and consumer tastes” (see Specification paragraph [0005]) by performing the claimed limitations which include “determining, from the at least one keyword, a stem keyword.” This can be both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it is following rules or instructions (i.e., determining a stem keyword in order to determine, provide, and update search filters and search results to a user based on a user query) and/or a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations (i.e., determining, providing, and updating search filters and search results to a user based on a user query in order to provide and update optimized filters to search results in a user-friendly way to reflect trends of the market and consumer tastes (see Specification paragraphs [0001]-[0005])). Further, while not argued above in the full rejection of the claims, this limitation also falls within the mental processing groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Moreover, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards “providing efficient and relevant follow-up searches to users, especially when the users do not know the exact terms for the follow-up searches” in the Remarks filed 10/28/2025 and in paragraph [0003] of the Specification is itself an abstract idea and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One.
Additionally, determining, providing, and updating search filters and search results to a user based on a user query is an abstract idea known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
Examiner notes the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 21-26 the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, on pages 21-26, Applicant argues the claims recite a specific technical mechanism for maintaining and regenerating a filter interface by using cached raw search results and cached configuration state to control how regenerated filters are displayed after a state changing filter selection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that while the amended claims recite storing and retrieving information (i.e., raw search results and filter groups) from memory (i.e., cache and a storage device), the Specification describes these process at a high level of generality. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). While Applicant notes paragraphs [0069], [0070], [0073], [0083], [0085], [0086], [0088]-[0090] provide support for these limitations being performed, the cited portions of these paragraphs within the Remarks is directed to a specific abstract idea and does not describe a technical explanation such that it provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes.
Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Further, the additional elements of the amended claims utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing or retrieving information from memory, and presenting offers. For example, while Applicant has amended the claims to recite “storing, in a cache for a search session or a user session, raw search results generated by the initial search before applying filters to the raw search results,” the Specification does not provide a technical explanation as to why the abstract idea of “storing, for a search session or a user session, raw search results generated by the initial search before applying filters to the raw search results” being stored “in a cache” amounts to more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Further, the Specification does not set forth or describe a technical expiation such that it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the additional elements of the amended claim recite a “specific role” in a “particular data processing and interface regeneration sequence” that would amount to the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field.
The amended limitations describe the abstract idea in a particular way, but the claims do not recite and the Specification does not describe a “particular way of operating a computer generated filter interface using cached session data and cached configuration data” such that it would integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on pages 26-32 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. While Applicant argues the ordered combination provides significant more than the alleged abstract ide because it defines how specific stored data structures are generated, reused, compared, and applied to update a dynamically regenerated interface, Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Defining how specific stored data structures are generated, reused, compared, and applied are recited at a high level of generality and under the broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to the abstract idea. Applying the abstract idea on a “dynamically regenerated interface” does not amount to more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Once again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. For example, if it is asserted that the argued “dynamically regenerated interface” improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). The specification merely describes at a high level the information displayed on the “dynamically regenerated interface” and transmitting, receiving, and storing the information in a generic “cache” and/or generic “storage device” without a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention. That is, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the interface, cache, storage device, and/or the manner in which these additional elements interact with each other (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
While Applicant contents on pages 29-32 that the Examiner has failed to provide factual evidence addressing Berkheimer, the Examiner disagrees, and points specifically to the previous rejection, as well as that updated above. As referred to both previously and below, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that the courts have recognized as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers (MPEP 2106.05). As these operations have been expressly noted by the courts, the Examiner has indeed provided factual evidence to the Examiner’s findings. Again, Examiner reiterates MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore the arguments directed to these limitations are moot as they cannot provide integration. As referenced to both previously and above, with respect to the argued limitations being performed by “a user device”, “at least one storage device”, “a cache”, “at least one storage device comprising instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions”, “a user interface element”, a filter “interface”, the Examiner underscores that these limitations are being performed by a generic processor and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The background also states that the generic processor performs these limitations at a high level of generality (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0026], [0036], [0042], [0049], [0066], [0069], [0070], [0073], [0083], [0085], [0086], [0088]-[0090], and [0094]-[0095] of the instant Specification). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that he courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers. As these operations have been expressly noted by the courts, the Examiner has indeed provided factual evidence to the Examiner’s findings. Berkheimer is thereby satisfied.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and/or the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights